chat with a catholic

[IreneM]

Kath we can discuss sola scrpita that is fine with me

The doctrine issues are so differnt that sometimes I can understand why even in the prodestant religions there are so many splinter groups.......

Some love benny hinn some don't some love billy graham some don't

some are pentacostal some are baptist some are methodest etc all because of some doctrine differnce.

Mary is held in high regard to catholics we do not hold her as such. Yes she was the mother of Jesus but we see her as a sinner just like us

David was the apple of Gods eye yet he was a sinner was mary loved more by God then david, I don't know but I beleive that they were both sinners just like all of us.

In Christ

IreneM

ps please everyone don't gang up on kath and if there are other catholics who would like to resond please remember the ground rules.........

[RGR]

Maybe I just mellow out with age? I grew up with the thought that somehow Catholic people couldn't truly be Christians, but as I grow older (and possibly growing in the Lord?) I see absolutely no reason for that belief I once held. I certainly don't agree with much doctrine of the Catholic Church, but I take a live and let live attitude. If someone has confessed Christ as their Lord and asked Him to forgive their sins, they're my brother/sister in Christ regardless of denominational affiliation.

I got into a conversation with a Baptist friend the other day on "once saved, always saved" but I don't consider her any less a Christian because of that belief that I don't agree with! So why are so many Protestants quick to judge those within the Catholic Church as being non-Christians because of doctrinal differences? I was watching Jack Van Impe last week and he was talking about many of the positions the Catholic Church takes and ya know what? The RCC believes in a literal return of Christ, His ruling the earth for 1000 years and other very mainline beliefs. Sure we can argue about what we believe and contend for the faith, but there are far too many things going on out there that we could bind together in prayer on whether we be Protestant or Catholic and we could see some major changes in this nation!

[Anne]

Kath I know you are being bombarded with questions, but in response to your earlier question, yes I would like to discuss this further.

You said that the members of the Roman Catholic Church believe they will get into Heaven by becoming the Children of God.

How is it you personally believe you will become a Child of God?

Anne

[IreneM]

if we all were the same this world would be very dull indeed

In Heaven it says we will be known as we were known so I think we will have the same personallities we had here minus the sin (in my case I need a personallity adjustment)

We will be surpised who is there and who is not, boy will that be a shock to alot of people!!!

We are not going to solve any issues here just a better understanding of what we believe and that is what I wish to accomplish.

Now then

Kat take the questions as you wish and if there is some you do not wish to answer please say so you don't have to give a reason why

I love these little face icons the expressions are so cool !!!!!!

(boy does that statement age me) 56 for all who were wondering and 56 for all who were not

In Christ

Irene

[Katholish]

What you've got here are ignorant(not a bad thing) people concerning Catholocism.  We see a contradiction so please reiterate what you mean.  You said unwritten and yet talk about things that are in the Bible.  I don't know what the assumption is (ignorance again) but everything else is to me not tradition but teachings that I've gathered from reading the Bible.  So what exactly are the 'Sacred Traditions'?

The Assumption of Mary is the teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven at the end of her earthly life. Now, whether or not Mary physically died is a slightly different matter which is as of yet undefined by the Church. It is open to speculation. Some hold that she was taken up like Elijah, others that she died first and then her body was taken up with her soul (which might have been the case with Moses as it is referred to in the Epistle of Jude that St. Michael the Archangel fought with Satan over the body of Moses, but it is not exactly known what happened there). The Eastern Catholic rites and the Orthodox churches generally hold a belief in Mary's "Dormition" but even in that, it is unclear if it actually implies death, or deep sleep.

However, all Catholics hold that she was assumed body and soul into Heaven, that is the doctrine of the Assumption. It is one example of Sacred Tradition that does not have direct scriptural referrance (because no Scripture deals with the end of Mary's life on earth).

To clarify further what Sacred Tradition is, it is not necessarily something not covered by the Scriptures, there is largely a cross over, but Tradition sometimes includes a deeper understanding that is not presented in the Sacred Scriptures. While there are Scriptural referrences for all of the Catholic Church's seven sacraments, it is through Tradition that we have a deeper understanding of most of them.

Now, a question that I have not addressed yet is how we know what Sacred Tradition is, and the answer is that primarily evidence left from the Early Church in the uninspired writtings of the Church Fathers give us a clear idea of the beliefs and practices of the Early Church, and since we hold that the doctrine of the Church is unchangable, we hold what the Early Church holds. So we can often gather solid evidence as to Apostolic Traditions from those whom the Aposltes themselves taught, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John (the Apostle), and St. Polycarp also a disciple of John, etc. Even those whom the Apostolic Fathers taught can give a clear idea of the Apostles' teachings, like St. Irenaeus of Lyons who was taught by St. Polycarp.

[Katholish]

but we leave out pergatory  which the catholic church does not.

To say that we must suffer in pergatory  is saying that  Jesus Death on the Cross was not enough for our sin.

When Jesus said  "it is finished"  he was saying  that what He had come to do was done  He had paid the price for our sin    PAID IN FULL  yet the catholice church says  that that is not so  there are some sins that were not paid for on the Cross and we much suffer for them in pergatory    but  if you have relitives or friends who give money to the church  they can lessen your time there................

That is not scriptual  yet millions believe it.

Ok, I will try to address why Purgatory does not conflict with the Sacrifice of Christ or what we are told in Sacred Scripture.

The issue revolves around a distinction in the kind of punishment due for sins which most Protestants do not make or refuse to acknowledge. The difference is between eternal punishment due for sins and temporal punishment due for sins. If we have a serious sin forgiven through Christ, the eternal punishment is completely removed. We no longer merit Hell, Christ having forgiven the sin. However, there are instances when a person can be forgiven, yet for their own good must be punished in some manner. Allow me to provide examples from the Scriptures.

King David had repented of killing Urias, and the Lord forgave David, however, in justice, David's firstborn was taken from him in the way of temporal punishment due for David's sin.

2 Kings 12 (2 Samuel 12):

13 And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die.

14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.

15 And Nathan returned to his house. The Lord also struck the child which the wife of Urias had borne to David, and his life was despaired of.

16 And David besought the Lord for the child: and David kept a fast, and going in by himself lay upon the ground.

17 And the ancients of his house came, to make him rise from the ground: but he would not, neither did he eat meat with them.

18 And it came to pass on the seventh day that the child died: and the servants of David feared to tell him, that the child was dead. For they said: Behold when the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he would not hearken to our voice: how much more will he afflict himself if we tell him that the child is dead?

19 But when David saw his servants whispering, he understood that the child was dead: and he said to his servants: Is the child dead? They answered him He is dead.

20 Then David arose from the ground, and washed and anointed himself: and when he had changed his apparel, he went into the house of the Lord: and worshipped, and then he came into his own house, and he called for bread, and ate.

21 And his servants said to him: What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive, but when the child was dead, thou didst rise up, and eat bread.

22 And he said: While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept for him: for I said: Who knoweth whether the Lord may not give him to me, and the child may live?

23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Shall I be able to bring him back any more? I shall go to him rather: but he shall not return to me.

When Moses disobeyed the Lord by striking the Rock twice as opposed to speaking to it, the Lord forgave him (for is there any doubt that Moses is saved?) yet he still had to under go temporal punishment by being prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

Numbers 20:

9 Moses therefore took the rod, which was before the Lord, as he had commanded him,

10 And having gathered together the multitude before the rock, he said to them: Hear, ye rebellious and incredulous: Can we bring you forth water out of this rock?

11 And when Moses bad lifted up his hand, and struck the rock twice with the rod, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank,

12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you have not believed me, to sanctify me before the children of Israel, you shall not bring these people into the land, which I will give them.

13 This is the Water of contradiction, where the children of Israel strove with words against the Lord, and he was sanctified in them.

St. Paul (or "the author of Hebrews") even makes this point clear in the New Testament. Temporal punishment is the discipline of the Lord who chastises us for our own good. If there was not temporal punishment, we might think that we are not loved, for a father disciplines his children out of love.

Hebrews 12:

5 And you have forgotten the consolation which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord: neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him.

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth: and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons. For what son is there whom the father doth not correct?

8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards and not sons.

9 Moreover, we have had fathers of our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them. Shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits and live?

10 And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification.

11 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by it the most peaceable fruit of justice.

12 Wherefore, lift up the hands which hang down and the feeble knees:

13 And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed.

The point being  all churchs are not scriptual 100% 

However, I do believe that Christ founded one visible Church which is His unblemished spouse, so I would insist that one Church is fully scriptural. Now, you may not think that Church to be the Catholic Church, but I do think that there must be one, that share the bonds of Doctrine, Liturgy, and Governance. This is certainly the opinion of the very Early Church, even as early as the 1st Century. I believe the Early Church to be the same as the Catholic Church, and hence I am Catholic. I am just saying that I will not accept the premise that no church is entirely operating in accord with Sacred Scripture.

God bless,

Katholish

[Katholish]

Katholish, you make a grave mistake in including Jesus in Romans 3:23.  For one, the Bible does say that he was born without sin.  That He was the only individual without sin.  More importantly, He is God while Mary was not.  His Godhood is why he was born without sin.  He had to fulfill the prophecy of a blameless lamb.  Nothing of this nature is ever mentioned of Mary.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I was specifically not including Christ in Romans 3:23, but rather pointing out that the use of "all" is a generalization and is not meant to exclude all possibility of exceptions, of which Christ, while being God was also truly human.

For the child who dies without sin, this is a parallel that should not be drawn.  A child has not entered the age of accountability so they have no guilt applied.  The have not reached adulthood unlike Mary.

Again, I am pointing out that the passage should not be taken in an absolutist interpretation, because it was meant as a generalization. I am not saying that all babies have commited actual sin, quite the opposite.

I am not trying to use Romans 3:23 to prove anything, only to show that it, by its nature, does not disprove anything in regard to Mary, or Christ for that matter.

[Katholish]

As part of the Catholic's twisted and deceitful teaching about the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that Jesus was the only child born of Mary.  Scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers.  This shows a direct contradiction between what the Catholic's teach on this subject and what the scriptures teach.

Actually the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine held by the Church, it is not a part of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

At the same time, I can prove that there is no evidence in Scripture nor in any other source that proves Mary had other children, but furthermore, can provide evidence that suggests that she did not.

Not to be insulting, but I never understood why people claim that Mary had other children based on the referrence in Matthew

Matthew 13 (Douay Translation):

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Matthew 13 (King James Version):

55: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

"Brethren" (in the Greek, adelphos) does not necessarily refer to immediate family, but can refer to extended family, such as cousins, etc. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves provide explicit proof that it is being used in this manner.

This James referred here is also the one referred as James, "the brother of the Lord." As by St. Paul in Galatians.

Galatians 1:

18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter: and I tarried with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord.

20 Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not.

We also learn from this passage, that this James, "the brother of the Lord", is one of the 12 Apostles. Earlier, we learned in the Gospel of Matthew the names of all of the Aposltes, and we see that there are two James's.

Matthew 10:

1 And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.

2 And the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,

3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,

4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

One James is the brother of John, and have the same mother, who is not the mother of Jesus, so that is clearly not the James referred to (he had already been killed by this time anyway.) Thus, this James, "the brother of the Lord" must be the other James, listed as the son of Alpheus. From that alone, we have incontrovertable proof, but I can supply more beyond that.

We also know who another one of the men mentioned as the brethern of the Lord is, and it is another Apostle. In Jude's Epistle, he names himseld as the brother of James.

Jude 1:

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ and called.

That is quite a coincidence if this Apostle is not also the Jude referred to as one of the Lord's "brethern".

Beyond this Scriptural evidence, we have the testimony of one of the Apostolic Fathers of the 1st Century. Papias was taught by the Apostle John, and since John was the guardian of Mary after her Son's death, it is not impossible that Papias met Mary, the Mother of the Lord himself. Regardless though, if he had made up something false about Christ's familial relations, there were enough people that know Him personally that could contradict it. In this fragment, Papias explains who the Marys are that are referred to in the Gospels. Note: "Thaddeus" is also a name given for the Aposlte Jude in the Scriptures.

Papias, Fragment X:

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands. 

Hopefully this was sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Scriptures and the Church's belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I am going to address the other points of your post in another post.

[Katholish]

Scylth,

The Catholics teach that Mary is a mediatrix between us and God.  Someone in Heaven who intercedes for us, between us and God.  This also is in direct contradiction to scripture which tells us that only Jesus Christ is our intercessor with the Father.

The wording of the first sentence there is somewhat imprecise, and could be taken to mean something that we do not. We call Mary a mediatrix of graces, but not mean mediator between God and man in the sense that Christ holds that role, being both God and man.

The "sole mediator" argument is nothing new for me, though generally Protestants use it to go after the Church's teaching on the intercession of the saints, not just Mary.

Regarding the Sole Mediatorship of Christ.

The term Mediator can imply two different roles, that of reconciler and that of intercessor. The role of Christ far exceeds that of an intercessor, rather He is our Reconciler. That is really the sense in which it is meant in the Gospel. Only God could have taken the weight of our sins upon His shoulders and restore by obedience what was lost by sin. Christ is our redeemer, and as such has reconclied the human race to God by assuming that Nature and uniting it with the Divine.

As St. Anselm said, Only God could redeem man, but only man could make expiation in the order of Justice. Thus we see how great Christ's role as redeemer truly was. It was His sacrifice that made it possible to be children of God and heirs of Heaven.

This passage does not refer to Christ as our sole intercessor, for then we could not ask others to pray for us nor could we pray for others as we are commanded in the Scriptures, indeed in the very Book and Chapter that names Christ as our sole mediator.

1 Timothy 2:

1 I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men:

2 For kings and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,

4 Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

6 Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.

It is more than abundantly clear that intercession is not only not contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, but intercessory prayer is commanded by them.

Again, there is no contradiction between the Church's teaching and the Scriptures in this instance.

[Katholish]

Irene,

Kath  we can discuss sola scrpita  that is fine with me

Ok then, but I shall strive only to do so in the spirit of charity in which you started this topic, as I always try to do anyway.

Sola Scriptura (only Scripture) teaches essentially that only Scripture is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation that we may learn from. It was specifically crafted to exclude the Church's teaching on Sacred Tradition which had been norminative up to that time.

Catholics believe that Tradition is prior to Scripture both chronologically and epistemologically (in the order of time and in the order of knowing).

Tradition's epistemological priority is the area in which I think Sola Scriptura completely falls apart.

We take it as a matter of Faith and Doctrine that the Epistle of Jude is part of the Canon of Scripture. However, our source for this doctrine is itself not Scripture, but rather Tradition. That is (simply stated) why I cannot understand the popularity of the position.

ps  please everyone don't gang up on kath  and if there are other catholics who would like to resond  please remember the ground rules.........

I am actually used to it (the multiple questions thing). As far as other Catholics are concerned, it has been my experience that threads with multiple parties on both sides have a more difficult time staying civil and orderly than they do if one side is more or less controled by an individual.